Evolution is one of the wedge issues between liberal Protestants (who are quite friendly to incorporating evolution into their religious worldview) and Evangelicals (who are rather unhappy with evolution). Surprisingly, the current LDS position covers the whole spectrum, open to both accepting or rejecting evolution. The only position that might really be considered unacceptable at present in the LDS Church is to preach that Mormons cannot hold one or the other of the polar positions or that if they do so they are out of harmony with the Church or are flirting with apostasy. Here's how the First Presidency expressed that idea in the minutes to a 1931 meeting among the General Authorities (quoted in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article referenced above): "Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church ...."

At the Evolution Sunday 2007 home page is found the following statement:

On 11 February 2007 hundreds of congregations from all portions of the country and a host of denominations will come together to discuss the compatibility of religion and science. For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science. More than 10,000 Christian clergy have already signed The Clergy Letter demonstrating that this is a false dichotomy. ... Together, participating religious leaders will be making the statement that religion and science are not adversaries.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Religion and science are not adversaries ... nice thought.

Hehe. Yup. It has long been the LDS position and I'm stickin' with it!

I do think that we are in for an increasingly bumpy road though as science invades more and more territory formerly considered the sole domain of religion. (Recent studies about the physical brain and consciousness vs. the idea of a spirit come to mind as another battleground for instance.) But being the naturalist-leaning Mormon that I am I still have faith that religion and science are not really adversaries in the end -- even if some of our assumptions end up being tweaked along the way.

"Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church ...."

D&C88:78-80 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms— That ye may be prepared in all things...

Religion and science are not adversaries, they are separate systems for discovering truth. The foundation of science is observable phenomena. The essence of most scientific discovery is figuring out a new way to observe that which was previously unobservable. Religion's foundation is faith, a belief in things unseen, and otherwise unobservable. I am convinced that there will always be room for faith. Even if science can break down every biological and chemical reaction that makes up consciousness, can we ever really know these reactions aren't what is meant when describing the spirit?

Official LDS resources one might consult include those listed on the Creation and Fall pages in the Church's on-line Gospel Library at LDS.org, paying particular attention to the First Presidency statement on the subject.

R. Gary
If President Monson is correct, could we assume he still thinks man was placed on earth 6000 years ago? Would he accept the biblical version of the flood, even though science tells us it would had to have rained some trillions of gallons per second to cover the earth over the tallest mountains in forty days? How would he explain Homo neanderthalensis? Would he still claim the Lamanites are genetically descended from middle east colonizers? (I'm sure he would.)
The Catholics tried that kind of dogmatism with Galileo and it made them look ridiculous.

Mormon Books 2013-14

Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of MormonismGivens and Grow's warts-and-all biography of this energetic missionary, author, and apostle whose LDS career spanned Joseph Smith's life, the emigration to Utah, and Brigham Young's early leadership of the Church in Utah. My Review